"Nadal piling more RG titles only cements more and more his Clay GOAT status"

and more cluelessness from the embarassment of a poster.
4 AOs 2 USOs, 1 WTF > 1 AO 3 USOs.
WTF was not hard court In Agassi's day. AO was nowhere near the level of USO in the 90s.

So Nadal is clearly superior to Agassi as the ultimate HC major Nadal has won more times. im assuming you are relatively young and base your remarks on history books rather than what was the case back in the day.
 
As far as 1st part goes, that would mean the clay field would be very weak. and Fed lost to Kuerten in RG 2004. So it doesn't even begin to compare.
Put in good competition instead of Nadal and Fed would win probably 2 of 4 RGs from 2005-08.

As far as bold part goes, err, what ?
Djokovic lost to Murray in 2012, Nishi in 14 and Stan in 16.
And if he faced good competition (say in-form Murray) instead of Nadal in USO 13, he might have lost that as well. He was playing worse than in 2012.
Talking about Djokovic at RG, not USO
 
WTF was not hard court In Agassi's day. AO was nowhere near the level of USO in the 90s.

So Nadal is clearly superior to Agassi as the ultimate HC major Nadal has won more times. im assuming you are relatively young and base your remarks on history books rather than what was the case back in the day.
Agassi achievements on HC

4 AO 3 won in the 2000's.....
2 US 4 RU
1 IW
6 Miami
3 Canada Open
3 Cincinnati
1 Madrid
2 Paris Indoor
1 WTF on carpet

Basically you're saying Nadal better?
 
Agassi achievements on HC

4 AO 3 won in the 2000's.....
2 US 4 RU
1 IW
6 Miami
3 Canada Open
3 Cincinnati
1 Madrid
2 Paris Indoor
1 WTF on carpet

Basically you're saying Nadal better?
Madrid is on clay now. AO was not as hard to win as USO back in the 90s as so many players missed it (read Sampras book). Nadal has more IW's, more Canadian Opens and more US Opens. Paris Indoor was carpet back in the 90s.

As for Agassi winning Miami 6 times....are you sure?

Nadal has won the biggest HC events more times than Agassi. Yo uhave to look at the eras things took place in and not apply the same weight to events as they have now. Things and the fields were a lot different.
 
Madrid is on clay now. AO was not as hard to win as USO back in the 90s as so many players missed it (read Sampras book). Nadal has more IW's, more Canadian Opens and more US Opens. Paris Indoor was carpet back in the 90s.

As for Agassi winning Miami 6 times....are you sure?

Nadal has won the biggest HC events more times than Agassi. Yo uhave to look at the eras things took place in and not apply the same weight to events as they have now. Things and the fields were a lot different.
Yep 6 Miami's.

Australian open was played by everyone when Agassi won it.
 
Federer from 2008 to 2012 --- 5 slams -- 2 Wimbledons, 1 RG, 1 AO, 1 USO (+5 slam finals+6 slam semis)
Nadal from 2011 to 2015 -- 5 slams -- 4 RGs, 1 USO (+4 slam finals)

you were saying ?
Not sure how this has anything to do with what I've posted. Also not sure why you've chosen those select years to compare.

@ the bold part : oh and nadal had a clearly weaker federer in 2008-09 than fed in 04-07 and djokovic from 2011 onwards of course had past his prime Federer only.
oh and Roddick, Hewitt, Safin etc on their best surfaces/slams ~ Federer/Djokovic on clay, level wise.
Clearly weaker? Or just couldn't compete with better players coming through.
 
That's quite an unfair comparison when Federer has played many more slams than they have. You're not taking into account the age gap. Percentages would give a better comparison.

Exits before QF:
Fed: 22/76 - 28.95%
Djoker: 13/57 - 22.81%
Rafa: 18/56 - 32.14%

Exits before R4:
Fed: 12/76 - 15.79%
Djoker: 10/57 - 17.54%
Rafa: 13/56 - 23.21%

Exits before R3:
Fed: 7/76 - 9.21%
Djoker: 5/57 - 8.80%
Rafa: 7/56 - 12.50%

Exits before R2:
Fed: 6/76 - 7.89%
Djoker: 2/57 - 3.51%
Rafa: 2/56 - 3.57%

The only stat where Fed doesn't compare well is the 1R exits, and that's because he was a much worse player than Nadal and Djokovic from the ages of 19-21. All of his 1R exits happened before 2004. Nadal had one as recently as 2016. Nadal is actually the worst among them placing last in 3/4 early exit categories.

If we take the stats from the moment all 3 won their 1st slam, Fed might blow the others out of the water.

Edited: initial stats for Nadal were understated.
You see the thing is that you can't cherry pick ages or periods of a career. You need to look at the whole thing. All three have been playing long enough now to get a good sample size. It is not Rafa or Djoker's fault that they were much better at a younger age than Fed was. Equally, it is to Fed's credit that he won slams past 35 which the other two may or may not do.

The only stat where Fed doesn't compare well is the 1R exits, and that's because he was a much worse player than Nadal and Djokovic
Thanks for your honesty. I'm glad we agree. It was evident then, it is evident now and will become even more evident in the coming years to anyone that is not biased.
 
Nadal won half his slams (5-2-1-1) before the emergence of Djokovic.
Djokovic won 14 of his slams past the emergence of Federer.
Djokodal met zero times at the Australian Open, Wimbledon, and the US Open in 2014, 2015, and 2016.
Djokodal's young-guns were the LostGens.
Nadal always had Fed to compete with and later Djokovic also. Djokovic always had the other two. Djokodal have each other and Fed still to compete with to this day. Federer had a nice slam buffer without the other two at full maturity and he still only has a two slam lead - not a good look for him.
 
I don't believe he's the GOAT, but he is the most successful singles player to date because of his 20 GS, and he's earned that. As things stand, the GS rankings are still 20-18-15 - if that's still the widely accepted main metric for people to consider someone as GOAT, I don't see why it's unreasonable for people to argue that he's the GOAT, or that he has the best claim to be GOAT, at least currently. Should Nadal and Djokovic get to 20, things get muddier, as they should. If they get beyond 20, then they should have the better claim to GOAT.
I agree with most of this. I just think it was just a little premature by some that he is a locked in GOAT forever.

His winning rate slowed dramatically, because not only are Djokovic and Nadal tier 1 ATG's themselves, they're significantly younger too. I don't think Federer could have done much better than he did, considering how strong Djokovic and Nadal were and still are. If Federer's position was reversed, with Nadal or Djokovic being older, I don't think they would have done any better. That's of course an untestable claim, and therefore irrelevant.
The bolded section pretty much sums it up. Federer is awesome but Nadal and Djokovic have run through him and each other and are quickly closing in on all of his records. I can't agree that they wouldn't do much better. Djokovic bloomed quite late in life and Rafa had been beating world number 1 Fed since he was 18.

Federer always had issues with Nadal, but I don't think it was because Nadal was a completely superior tennis player. He had matchup issues, and that he never overcame them until much later is to his discredit. Nadal, after all, beat peak Fed in Wimbledon 2008 and AO 2009, and was beating him on hard courts from the start. With Djokovic, I think the age gap really played into his advantage. Fed led the Slam h2h with Djokovic until their 2014 Wimbledon match, when Fed was already 33. He went 2-3 in slams vs a beastly Djokovic from 2011-2012. I think Djokovic and Nadal make him look a lot worse than he really is because they've had the opportunity to abuse the age gap, especially since Fed ended up playing for so long. IMO, the 3 of them are very VERY close in overall ability, and it's too difficult at this point to claim one as clearly superior.
Matchup issues is like a couple of players playing once or twice and the underdog getting up surprisingly both times. Fedal have enough of a sample size to suggest that at 24 - 15 Nadal is a better player than Fed when the two are head-to-head. Fed has not turned anything around, he made a racket and technique adjustment in 2017 that meant he got a good run against Rafa, that's it. Rafa has been on 5 game winning streaks against Fed on three separate occasions. Look at the recent RG semi-final. Fed has been playing really well this year including on clay and it was business as usual for Rafa.
 
Of course......


You are telling me that Nadal is better than the guy who has played all GS finals in one year; 237 weeks in a row world number one; reached 18 GS finals out 19 between 2005 and 2008 played 23 consecutive GS semi finals:D:D

You forgot to take into account how many Round robins?
Absolutely Rafa is better. He started winning slams at a much younger age than Fed, he dominates the rivalry when they match up H2H (24 - 15) including a devastating 10 - 3 in slams and at the same age the slam count is 18 - 17 in favour of Rafa.

Let's look at Fed's major numbers:
20 slams
310 weeks at # 1
5 YE # 1
6 WTF
28 (lol) M1000 titles

80% of this was achieved before Djokovic and Nadal reached full maturity. These numbers are flattering and he wouldn't have gotten near them if he had been the same age. The thing that makes it worse for Fed is that despite the nice head-start, he only has a two slam lead.
 
Absolutely Rafa is better. He started winning slams at a much younger age than Fed, he dominates the rivalry when they match up H2H (24 - 15) including a devastating 10 - 3 in slams and at the same age the slam count is 18 - 17 in favour of Rafa.

Let's look at Fed's major numbers:
20 slams
310 weeks at # 1
5 YE # 1
6 WTF
28 (lol) M1000 titles

80% of this was achieved before Djokovic and Nadal reached full maturity. These numbers are flattering and he wouldn't have gotten near them if he had been the same age. The thing that makes it worse for Fed is that despite the nice head-start, he only has a two slam lead.
You are very funny not taking into account the age difference.

Steve Darcis world number 135 beat peak Nadal in the first round of wimbledon in straight set. Is that GOAT?



The thing that makes it worse for Nadal is that despite being clay GOAT, he's still trailing FED.
 
Is that a bit like not showing up to RG for three years to avoid having your arse handed to you?
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe Rafa is the only one who has ever backed out of a match directly before he played Fed. Can't recall fed ever doing that to Rafa (he did to Djoker). And don't bring the he was "hurt" bit. Be in better physical shape and stop getting hurt so much.
 
You are very funny not taking into account the age difference.

Steve Darcis world number 135 beat peak Nadal in the first round of wimbledon in straight set. Is that GOAT?



The thing that makes it worse for Nadal is that despite being clay GOAT, he's still trailing FED.
Rafa was beating Fed when Fed was aged 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and he's still beating him at at 37. Rafa's beaten Fed when he was a teenager, in his 20's and in his 30's. I think that is a large enough sample size to show that Fed isn't beating Rafa because he's old.

Let's not go throwing stones about Darics when we've got Stakhovsy taking out the grass GOAT at Wimbledon, Millman at the AO and losing to Anderson from two sets and match point up again at Wimbledon.
 
Correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe Rafa is the only one who has ever backed out of a match directly before he played Fed. Can't recall fed ever doing that to Rafa (he did to Djoker). And don't bring the he was "hurt" bit. Be in better physical shape and stop getting hurt so much.
I don't think this has happened from memory. What is the suggestion that you are making?
 
I don't think this has happened from memory. What is the suggestion that you are making?
H2h is junk until they at least have the same amount of slams. At that point it can be used, but even then some will argue WTF's and weeks at number one are more important.

Rafa would trade his h2h against Fed for just one more slam. That should give you an idea at how important h2h truly is.
 
Absolutely Rafa is better. He started winning slams at a much younger age than Fed, he dominates the rivalry when they match up H2H (24 - 15) including a devastating 10 - 3 in slams and at the same age the slam count is 18 - 17 in favour of Rafa.

Let's look at Fed's major numbers:
20 slams
310 weeks at # 1
5 YE # 1
6 WTF
28 (lol) M1000 titles

80% of this was achieved before Djokovic and Nadal reached full maturity. These numbers are flattering and he wouldn't have gotten near them if he had been the same age. The thing that makes it worse for Fed is that despite the nice head-start, he only has a two slam lead.
It is not when you do it, but what you do, and Nadal still has a bit of catching up to do.
 
I agree with most of this. I just think it was just a little premature by some that he is a locked in GOAT forever.
Agreed. No one is or can be GOAT forever, no matter what the fans believe.
The bolded section pretty much sums it up. Federer is awesome but Nadal and Djokovic have run through him and each other and are quickly closing in on all of his records. I can't agree that they wouldn't do much better. Djokovic bloomed quite late in life and Rafa had been beating world number 1 Fed since he was 18.
Nadal ran through Federer, but the Djokovic and Federer rivalry has been a nail biter. Djokovic didn't take the lead until 2016 when Fed was already 34 years old. I think if all 3 had been within 1-2 years of each other in age, Fed would have a losing record to Rafa but a winning record vs Djokovic, with close to an even h2h overall. To each his own.
Matchup issues is like a couple of players playing once or twice and the underdog getting up surprisingly both times. Fedal have enough of a sample size to suggest that at 24 - 15 Nadal is a better player than Fed when the two are head-to-head. Fed has not turned anything around, he made a racket and technique adjustment in 2017 that meant he got a good run against Rafa, that's it. Rafa has been on 5 game winning streaks against Fed on three separate occasions. Look at the recent RG semi-final. Fed has been playing really well this year including on clay and it was business as usual for Rafa.
I'm not arguing against this. I'm just saying Fed is a better player than his h2h with Rafa indicates. If you look at the 24-15 overall h2h and the 10-3 slam h2h, you would think Fed is a complete pushover, but he's not. It's a testament to Rafa that he has such a dominant record, not a knock against Fed. Despite the lopsided h2h, Fed is still slightly ahead in career accomplishments, as he should be being 5 years older. Rafa might very well overtake Fed, but even then, I don't think the gap between them will be that big overall.
 
You see the thing is that you can't cherry pick ages or periods of a career. You need to look at the whole thing. All three have been playing long enough now to get a good sample size. It is not Rafa or Djoker's fault that they were much better at a younger age than Fed was. Equally, it is to Fed's credit that he won slams past 35 which the other two may or may not do.
None of those stats are cherry-picked. All of them are career stats, so they include Fed's ghastly records before 2003. Despite that Nadal is last in 3/4 categories. Djokovic and Federer are simply more consistent and less prone to upsets than him. If I picked the period since they won their first slam, it would look even worse for Nadal.
Thanks for your honesty. I'm glad we agree. It was evident then, it is evident now and will become even more evident in the coming years to anyone that is not biased.
Please don't deliberately omit words from the original post to change the intended meaning. You know what I was really trying to say. I don't think even you believe he's a much worse player than Nadal and Djokovic. I know you're a reasonable poster.
 
Rafa was beating Fed when Fed was aged 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and he's still beating him at at 37. Rafa's beaten Fed when he was a teenager, in his 20's and in his 30's. I think that is a large enough sample size to show that Fed isn't beating Rafa because he's old.

Let's not go throwing stones about Darics when we've got Stakhovsy taking out the grass GOAT at Wimbledon, Millman at the AO and losing to Anderson from two sets and match point up again at Wimbledon.
Same old story

Fed was good enough to play Nadal on clay.
Nadal couldn't overcome the likes of Gonzalez Tsonga Ferrer Berdych Verdasco Muller Rosol Brown Wc Kyrgios Darcis blake youznhi Fognini Pouille to face Fed in the last rounds of any surface than clay.

But as Novak has got a better head to head with Nadal (almost 1 way trafic since 2011) i take u think Novak is better than Nadal?
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Not sure how this has anything to do with what I've posted. Also not sure why you've chosen those select years to compare.
umm, since supposedly Nadal's rise came in 2008 and Djokovic's in 2011.
So comparing the 5 years for Federer from 2008 onwards and 5 for Nadal from 2011 onwards.
Both got same # of slams, but otherwise, Federer was clearly better (more consistent). He also won at all the 4 slams, unlike Nadal who won 4 at RG and 1 at USO.
So your point about Federer "slowing" down solely due to so called better competition could easily be turned around and applied to Nadal as well --- Nadal actually did worse. In the end, your point is just utter bullsh*t because on your inadequate knowledge of tennis in 2004-07, bias and incorrect perspective in general (when you think only ATGs can provide tough competition)

Clearly weaker? Or just couldn't compete with better players coming through.
yes, clearly weaker. He lost to a lot of other players not named Nadal/Djokovic in 2008-09.
Fish, Roddick, Karlovic, Simon, Stepanek, Benneteau, Wawrinka etc.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
WTF was not hard court In Agassi's day. AO was nowhere near the level of USO in the 90s.

So Nadal is clearly superior to Agassi as the ultimate HC major Nadal has won more times. im assuming you are relatively young and base your remarks on history books rather than what was the case back in the day.
AO wasn't at the level of USO, but was a clear full slam in the 90s.
only an absolutely deluded guy can ignore 4 AOs >>>>>>>> 1 AO
nadal may have won 1 more USO than Agassi, but he is not better at it. He just got easy draws there - all of them 2010, 2013 and especially USO 2017 which was an absolutely clown draw.
djokovic in USO 2010 was the saving grace and in USO 2013, djokovic absolutely self-destructed in 2 out of the 4 sets (and choked in the 3rd set)

Yes, Agassi's 1990 title was on carpet. I combined HC+carpet.
Agassi could not have won it on HC if it was on carpet.
And don't start daydreaming about Nadal winning the YEC on low bouncing medium-fast carpet. :-D:-D

@ the bold part.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

says the clueless moron who didn't even watch tennis before 2008 and knows diddly squat about tennis before that.
I'm not relatively young and have watched many matches starting from mid-70s onwards.
 
AO wasn't at the level of USO, but was a clear full slam in the 90s.
only an absolutely deluded guy can ignore 4 AOs >>>>>>>> 1 AO
nadal may have won 1 more USO than Agassi, but he is not better at it. He just got easy draws there -- especially USO 2017 which was an absolutely clownish draw.

@ the bold part.

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

says the clueless moron who didn't even watch tennis before 2008 and knows diddly squat about tennis before that.
I'm not relatively young and have watched many matches starting from mid-70s onwards.
This the same clownish draw Federer was in?

The level of outrage at Nadal's hard court prowess, evidenced by being a triple major Champion at the most important HC Major is quite delightful to witness.
 
no sane Federer fan was telling Federer was playing peak tennis in year 2015 as a whole.
But then that's just another one of your set of 1000s of delusions regarding tennis.
So you know Federer better than Federer himself. Ok then...forgive me I shall continue to go off what Federer says about his form.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
This the same clownish draw Federer was in?

The level of outrage at Nadal's hard court prowess, evidenced by being a triple major Champion at the most important HC Major is quite delightful to witness.
Federer was injury affected at Montreal. Had not fully recovered his form at USO.
Half the top 10 was missing. No top 25 players for Nadal.
And delpo who could have posed a challenge was done physically after set 1 (after 2 intense matches vs Thiem/Federer and just recovering from sickness)
2010 and 2013 both Nadal got a bunch of easy or tired players (with 1 or 2 5-setters before their matches with Nadal)

The level of outrage at Nadal's enormous luck at the USO is entirely justified.

nadal = 11/69 matches vs top 10 at USO. 6-5 vs them.
% of top 10 matches at USO = 15.94%

agassi = 23/98 matches vs top 10 at USO. 13-10 vs them. ( 6 of those losses were to the USO GOATs Sampras and Federer)
% of top 10 matches at USO = 23.47%

Nadal is not better than Agassi at the USO.
just got clearly luckier with the draws/circumstances.
 
Federer was injury affected at Montreal. Had not fully recovered his form. Half the top 10 was missing. No top 25 players for Nadal.
And delpo who could have posed a challenged was done physically after set 1 (after 2 intense matches vs Thiem/Federer and just recovering from sickness)
2010 and 2013 both he got a bunch of easy or tired players (with 1 or 2 5-setters before their matches with Nadal)

The level of outrage at Nadal's enormous luck at the USO is entirely justified.

nadal = 11/69 matches vs top 10 at USO. 6-5 vs them.
% of top 10 matches at USO = 15.94%

agassi = 23/98 matches vs top 10 at USO. 13-10 vs them. ( 6 of those losses were to the USO GOATs Sampras and Federer)
% of top 10 matches at USO = 23.47%

Nadal is not better than Agassi at the USO.
just got clearly luckier with the draws/circumstances.
Yes obviously a three time champion at a Major achieves it by luck lol. Djokovic in the final 4 times of course proves how clownish the draws were .

Of course whenever Federer loses he is injured, I forgot about that.

Keep this up, it is a great read really. :)
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Yes obviously a three time champion at a Major achieves it by luck lol. Djokovic in the final 4 times of course proves how clownish the draws were .
I already explained why Nadal's draws were easy and 2017 was clownish. Deal with it.


Of course whenever Federer loses he is injured, I forgot about that.
that's hilarious considering the Nadal fan base is the excuse fanbase. :D
Federer was injured in Montreal 2017 -- clear to anyone who watched /followed tennis and isn't an absolute dimwit.
 
I already explained why Nadal's draws were easy and 2017 was clownish. Deal with it.




that's hilarious considering the Nadal fan base is the excuse fanbase. :D
Federer was injured in Montreal 2017 -- clear to anyone who watched /followed tennis and isn't an absolute dimwit.
Deal with what? Nadal winning an event Federer was participating in (in same half as draw as well). I dealt with it very happily thank you.

USO 2017 was my 2nd favourite victory after FO 2019 due to the effect on posters such as yourself. Purely blissful.
 
Top